|
Post by emron on Aug 4, 2018 19:36:47 GMT 12
I'm not sure I can provide too much insight here as I've only ever been involved with the Hudson. I've had a look at the parts books for the Hudson, Lodestar, and Ventura that we have at Ferrymead. The illustrations of the wing group in the Hudson and Lodestar look identical but of course the P/Ns are different (Hudson wing is 70271, Lodestar 73681 and Ventura 19009 each with L or R suffix as appropriate). The Lodestar manual we have shows a straight trailing edge to the flap bay identical to the Hudson not the kinked style of the Ventura. However the parts list shows two different numbers for the centre sections namely 50137 and 50173-500 which are annotated as Commercial and Conversion respectively which suggests some sort of option to me. (Its interesting that the centre sections have the same P/N left and right when structurally they are handed side to side.) The other clue to the idea of an option thing comes from the Ventura manual which shows a separate item as the kinked trailing edge. As to the interchangeability of outer wings all I can say is that I've always been led to believe that Hudson and Lodestar ones fit one another. MoTaTs Ventura has Lodestar wings fitted but difference in structure required the fabrication of attachment adaptors. Queensland Air Museum are going down the same path with their Ventura using Lodestar wings from the US and a Hudson wing from us. hth Probably coming to this post a bit late to be adding much to the discussion but from experience with the hybrid Lockheeds at MOTAT I can confirm that there are significant differences between the 3 wings. The Hudson centre section has different attachment fittings on the spar ends compared to the Lodestar so their wings are not directly interchangeable. The L18 is a larger airframe than the L14 and appears to have a strengthened spar fitting. I haven’t compared the drawings to see if there are other structural differences. Perhaps if it was permitted to use those strengthened fittings on the Hudson centre section then the Lodestar wing would fit as all the other screw and bolt spacings are identical. Similarly if the strengthened fittings were approved for use on the Hudson wing then they would fit on the Lodestar. But considering the seeming abundance of Lodestar wings would that requirement have ever arisen?. I’ve no idea if either of these mods was documented or carried out. The Ventura had a maximum take off weight 60% greater than the other two. It’s centre-section, wing and flap are more substantial. The wings are attached with 1/4in screws vs 10-32 on the others. The attachment fittings at the spar joints are even more rugged than the Lodestar’s. So this wing would only have been able to be swapped onto another Ventura.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Aug 11, 2018 20:31:46 GMT 12
A member of Kiwi Modellers group very kindly agreed to sell me one of the pair of Classic Airframe Hudsons that he had so after picking it up today I've been comparing the Hudson and Ventura parts. The centre line of the engine from the fuselage was one of the measurements I was uncertain of. I'm very please to discover they are the same. The photo shows a Hudson wing sitting on top of a Ventura wing. With the number of variations of cowling and firewall offered in the Hudson kit i'm sure even after building the Hudson I can cobble something together to make the Lodestar engines using the Ventura wings.
|
|
|
Post by emron on Feb 14, 2019 20:52:53 GMT 12
Up until recently I thought NZ4600 was perhaps the only survivor from that batch of 200 Ventura IIA’s produced to it’s Lend-lease contract. Then I came across this variation on the Lockheed hybrid theme: Ventura c/n 137-4688 which shared the dual identity FD580 / 41-38032 designated as B-34A in USAAF service during WW2, to Cuban AF 1947, to USA registered NX1489V, converted to Howard 350 Super Ventura 1959, to N8GW crashed Florida 1979, to NMNA, loaned to NAS Sanford Memorial Park, Florida, currently being reconfigured for display as PV-1.
|
|
|
Post by silverbird on Oct 7, 2019 11:17:08 GMT 12
N880V is pictured on Air history.net with the following info Another one that started as a Hudson
Built in 1941 as an A-29 Hudson III and delivered to RAF as BW445. Converted to L18-56 Lodestar standard in 1955. Modified to Dallaero standard in 1964 with panoramic windows etc. Owned by Hawkins & Powers, Greybull, from 1972.
|
|
|
Post by agile on Oct 7, 2019 16:25:16 GMT 12
N880V is pictured on Air history.net with the following info Another one that started as a Hudson Built in 1941 as an A-29 Hudson III and delivered to RAF as BW445. Converted to L18-56 Lodestar standard in 1955. Modified to Dallaero standard in 1964 with panoramic windows etc. Owned by Hawkins & Powers, Greybull, from 1972. Now N41CW and fortunately escaped from H & P, which went bust a few years ago. A few of the other aircraft also escaped to the adjacent Museum of Aerial Fire Fighting, which is worth a look for anyone travelling through Wy.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 12, 2020 20:47:57 GMT 12
Today a resin Lodestar fuselage arrived after I did a swap with group member jimmy07. The fuselage by Fox 3 Studios is designed to match with a Classic Airframes Hudson kit. The photo shows the fuselage sides matched with Hudson and Ventura. As you can see there are definite differences in fuselage depth between the Lodestar and the other Lockheed twins. IMG_3530 by tankienz, on Flickr I have yet to compare the Lodestar with the collection of plans that this and other threads have uncovered as I have misplaced the scaled drawings. When I find them I will post similar comparison photos.
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Feb 13, 2020 9:23:09 GMT 12
I would certainly NEVER assume that ANY item from a kitset model was an accurate representation of the original! Most (if not all) early kits were certainly not based on manufacturer's blueprints (although some claimed they were!), and I doubt that many, if any are based on them today. However I would be delighted to be corrected on this point. One only has to closely compare the real thing with a model to realize that most of the latter are fairly crude miniatures in my experience - although some are a lot closer to the mark than others! David D
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Feb 13, 2020 16:36:51 GMT 12
I only use plans as a general arrangement guideline. Reference to Photos will give you a better 'Feel' for the aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 13, 2020 16:57:15 GMT 12
You seem to assume the plans are correct?
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 14, 2020 20:13:09 GMT 12
Well I found the plans but not quite the warm fuzzy I was hoping for. The first photo shows the outline differences, the second photo is to show the window placement differences.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 16, 2020 20:01:17 GMT 12
After consideration I have decided to continue with my original plan to use the Revell Ventura kit to provide the parts to make the Lodestar in conjunction with the Lodestar fuselage. The reason I have just two Hudson kits and I need both of them to may the patrol and transport version of RNZAF Hudson. So that will involve extra work on the engine and nacelle areas but at least I can use the additional parts provided in Hudson kit. So I've added addition depth to the front of the later version Hudson nacelles and reshaped the nacelles and engine cowling in a lathe. The slice of white plastic in the first photo is just to retain the cowling in the chuck. IMG_3533 by tankienz, on Flickr IMG_3535 by tankienz, on Flickr The width of underside of the nacelle has been reduced to allow for Lodestar style to be made. Also depth of the top section of nacelle has been cut back to Hudson proportions. IMG_3534 by tankienz, on Flickr
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 16, 2020 21:20:33 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Feb 17, 2020 15:29:31 GMT 12
Pretty certain that RNZAF C-60s were operated with the three-man crew - this also shows up in accident reports - just one pilot, nav, and w/opr. You can see the two spars crossing the cabin between the passengers and the crew positions; I think nav on left and W/Opr on right, but don't quote me on that. Looks as though troop seating (longitudinal benches) are used. Note that this aircraft also has the passenger window "grommets" fitted for emergency rifle fire defence against attacking aircraft (behind shoulder of closest man on right), no sign of rifles in cabin! I have also seen a view of the cockpit of an RNZAF C-60 (possibly in flight) showing both seats occupied, but the fellow who showed me this photo assured me that HE was the fellow in the left-hand seat, and he was an engine fitter. I think he was invited "up front" by the pilot (who he knew slightly - he even told me his name!) as the flight was a test after some work had been completed on one of the engines - it was an old practise to invite engine or airframe tradesmen "up front" on such test flights, to show their self-belief in the quality of their workmanship. David D
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 22, 2020 10:28:06 GMT 12
My head hurts. I'm trying to figure out what to do with the wayward Lodestar side windows but nothing is matching up as it appears on the drawing the relationship between the cockpit and wing root is wrong. I then compared with the Classic Airframes Hudson, Revell Ventura and resin Loadstar. Both the Lodestar and Hudson appear to have the wing root way too far forward while the Ventura and drawing relationship match. IMG_3537 by tankienz, on Flickr Question I thought the cockpit/wing relationship was the same on these three aircraft. Am I wrong? Bottom line it looks like all of the windows on the resin Lodestar need to moved along with the wing root. I may yet go back to plan A and convert a Ventura fuselage then at least I'm working in the same medium and it will be easier to cut new window openings. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Feb 22, 2020 10:45:11 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by davidd on Feb 22, 2020 12:24:50 GMT 12
I would have to agree with Saratoga, go with photos (if you cannot look at a real Lodestar); aircraft drawings are always at the mercy of whoever drafted them, from excellent to abysmal! Also window locations apparently vary, usually by "blanking out" any not required by the passengers who normally expect an uninterrupted view of the passing scenery. The Pima museum photo would seem to be an excellent example of this, with the forward-most window apparently having been deleted for reasons unknown. Possible of course, that its opposite number on port side may or may not have been similarly deleted. Incidentally this photograph also shows fairly conclusively the location of leading edge of wing in relation to a line dropped down from rear edge of the cockpit side window. And I have always been of the belief that Lockheed 14, 18 and the Ventura all had the wing location in fuselage in exactly the same place, but am I deluding myself? David D
|
|
|
Post by thebrads on Feb 22, 2020 13:33:54 GMT 12
There's some well known scale modelling "rules" (Platt's Laws), and one of them states: >Experience has demonstrated that the worst 3-views of any subject are the ones that came form the factory. The best were done by some careful modeler who wanted an accurate model and made his 3-view a labor of love.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Feb 22, 2020 15:19:06 GMT 12
Thanks that does match the plans.
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Feb 22, 2020 19:25:02 GMT 12
The appropriate structural repair manual should have a Station Diagram in it, which will be accurate.
One should note that possibly even photos can be a bit iffy, I can think of at least 2 airframes that were found to have the wing out of position by one frame station (they being a C-47 and Nimrod both instances of which was found on modification lines 40 to 60 years after the fact).
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Feb 22, 2020 21:25:33 GMT 12
Hi there 30sqnatc I am not sure if the following pics can help with your research as they are not RNZAF. I took both pics when I was still living in SA. The SAAF and SAA both used Lodestars during and after WWII. The top pic is actually a Ventura. I have added the pic here just in case it can be of help. SAAF Museum Swartkops[/url] Lockheed Loadstar[/url]
|
|